Bernard v. Zuniga

Filing 24

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Grant Respondent's 16 Motion to Dismiss and to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 07/12/2017. Referred to Judge Drozd.(Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 AMA BAHATI BERNARD, 11 Case No. 1:17-cv-00426-DAD-SAB-HC Petitioner, 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. 13 R. ZUNIGA, 14 (ECF No. 16) Respondent. 15 16 Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 17 18 U.S.C. § 2241. 19 I. 20 BACKGROUND Petitioner was sentenced to a term of nine months for a supervised release violation in the 21 1 22 Southern District of California. (ECF No. 16 at 2). On February 16, 2017, Petitioner filed the 23 instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Sacramento Division of the United States 24 District Court for the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 1). On March 1, 2017, the petition 25 was transferred to the Southern District of California. (ECF No. 4). On March 20, 2017, the 26 petition was transferred back to the Eastern District. (ECF No. 8-1). In the petition, Petitioner 27 appears to challenge the Federal Bureau of Prison’s refusal to place Petitioner at a Residential 28 1 Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page. 1 1 Reentry Center (“RRC”) for the final 120 days of his incarceration term. (ECF No. 1 at 6–8). On 2 May 26, 2017, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot. (ECF No. 16). 3 Petitioner has not filed any opposition. 4 II. 5 DISCUSSION 6 Article III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to 7 “actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 8 (1990). “This case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial 9 proceedings,” which “means that, throughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or 10 be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a 11 favorable judicial decision.’” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (emphasis added) (quoting 12 Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477). 13 In the petition, Petitioner requests that he be released into any halfway house for 120 14 days, as recommended in his judgment. (ECF No. 1 at 8). On April 20, 2017, Petitioner was 15 transferred to the Correctional Alternatives RRC, and Petitioner was projected to be released on 16 June 15, 2017. (ECF No. 20 at 2). Given that Petitioner has received the remedy he requested in 17 his petition, the Court finds that no case or controversy exists. 18 III. 19 RECOMMENDATION 20 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s motion to dismiss 21 (ECF No. 16) be GRANTED and the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED as moot. 22 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 23 Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 24 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 25 FOURTEEN (14) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file 26 written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 27 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the 28 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The 2 1 assigned District Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 3 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 4 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: July 12, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?